Still Waters 21,365

Stephen Hawking has produced a "mind-bending" new theory that argues black holes do not actually exist - at least not in the way we currently perceive them.

Instead, in his paper, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, Hawking proposes that black holes can exist without 'event horizons', the invisible cover believed to shroud every black hole.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ryu 4,027

Though I am obviously no scientist I often wondered about science's common claim about black holes that endlessly suck up everything.

As I understand it, there is only so much matter that can be collected and compressed before some sort of limit is reached. I mean, something has to give, right? Regardless of what it is transmuted into, it has to go somewhere and if the "hole" is feeding off of the matter it collects then the entity would have to get bigger or emanate something.

As for light, (though it strays a bit from the subject) maybe light itself (at least visible light) is something other than just a particle or wave. Maybe both, maybe neither or perhaps something in between but I would think that even light would have to be transmuted into something else as it passes into and perhaps out of the black "hole".

It just seems odd to me to have a entity that just vacuums up matter and have nothing to show for it; even batteries (for example) have their limits and either burst or simply quit absorbing electricity and might even start releasing stray bursts. I don't know.

Link to post

Share on other sites

spacecowboy342 2,324

Though I am obviously no scientist I often wondered about science's common claim about black holes that endlessly suck up everything.

As I understand it, there is only so much matter that can be collected and compressed before some sort of limit is reached. I mean, something has to give, right? Regardless of what it is transmuted into, it has to go somewhere and if the "hole" is feeding off of the matter it collects then the entity would have to get bigger or emanate something.

As for light, (though it strays a bit from the subject) maybe light itself (at least visible light) is something other than just a particle or wave. Maybe both, maybe neither or perhaps something in between but I would think that even light would have to be transmuted into something else as it passes into and perhaps out of the black "hole".

It just seems odd to me to have a entity that just vacuums up matter and have nothing to show for it; even batteries (for example) have their limits and either burst or simply quit absorbing electricity and might even start releasing stray bursts. I don't know.

Still it is great to see scientists challenging popular theories.

I don't think Dr. Hawking is saying there are no black holes that endlessly suck everything just that we must rethink our ideas about the event horizon
Edited January 25, 2014 by spacecowboy342

Stephen Hawking has produced a "mind-bending" new theory that argues black holes do not actually exist - at least not in the way we currently perceive them.

Instead, in his paper, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, Hawking proposes that black holes can exist without 'event horizons', the invisible cover believed to shroud every black hole.

its marvellous how scientist come up with these theories, In his paper, Hawking writes: "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity." He told Nature journal: “There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, but quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole.” Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada told Nature that "the picture Hawking gives sounds pretty reasonable". “You could say that it is radical to propose there’s no event horizon", he said. "But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”

Link to post

Share on other sites

DieChecker 16,633

It seems to me that Hawking is suggesting that the event horizon is a seperate entity from the actual collapsed mass beneath. That after the star collapses it forms a gravitational zone above it which is what is called the event horizon. Which is actually where the light and matter gets captured.

How could he ever think it impossible to escape if he believed energy could leave the system?

In Hawking radiation nothing actually was thought to escape as black holes were thought to be diminished from sucking in negative energy.(I think) Here information is escaping due to entanglement when one of a pair is drawn in and the other escapes and becomes entangled with every particle ever drawn into the hole, I think because all the information from everything that has ever entered the hole is smeared across the surface of the event horizon. My apologies to any physicists if I've mangled this but it seems the gist of what I got from reading the article. Also this idea isn't proved yet

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Drayno 2,296

Government Agent

Member

2,296

3,908 posts

Gender:Male

States are domed when they are unable to distinguish good men from bad.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

taniwha 1,326

Though I am obviously no scientist I often wondered about science's common claim about black holes that endlessly suck up everything.

As I understand it, there is only so much matter that can be collected and compressed before some sort of limit is reached. I mean, something has to give, right? Regardless of what it is transmuted into, it has to go somewhere and if the "hole" is feeding off of the matter it collects then the entity would have to get bigger or emanate something.

As for light, (though it strays a bit from the subject) maybe light itself (at least visible light) is something other than just a particle or wave. Maybe both, maybe neither or perhaps something in between but I would think that even light would have to be transmuted into something else as it passes into and perhaps out of the black "hole".

It just seems odd to me to have a entity that just vacuums up matter and have nothing to show for it; even batteries (for example) have their limits and either burst or simply quit absorbing electricity and might even start releasing stray bursts. I don't know.

Still it is great to see scientists challenging popular theories.

Well you dont have to be a scientist to make a lot of sense. I agree with your reasoning and it is a very good question to consider about the lifespan of a blackhole.

Maybe scientists browse these forums if they need any food for thought.